Unnecessary damage caused by plumber in search of leak

[Johnmelad]

The question I want SFB to answer is should she have paid the plumber who failed to find what she called him out for?

SFB?

I haven't a chrystal ball so who knows if he found the leak or not , if I was on an hourly rate I would of found the leak but at what cost I don't know , maybe the OP asked the plumber to leave due to 'hours totting up' , i'm sure the 'plumber' would have found the leak given a free reign and hopefully not taking advantage of the situation , do you really think the 'plumber' wouldn't of found the leak whilst on an hourly rate?

She said he did not find the leak, which bit of did not find the leak are you having a problem with?

Who said he was not given a free reign?

I will ask the question one more time. If a plumber is asked to attend a job due to a leak, he turns up, spends four hours on the job, can't find the leak, should he expect the customer to pay him. Please answer - yes or no. The saying "When in a hole, stop digging" Springs to mind.

You really are starting to sound and make yourself look stupid on this one lad.

 

[gaspro1981]

The question I want SFB to answer is should she have paid the plumber who failed to find what she called him out for?

SFB?

I haven't a chrystal ball so who knows if he found the leak or not , if I was on an hourly rate I would of found the leak but at what cost I don't know , maybe the OP asked the plumber to leave due to 'hours totting up' , i'm sure the 'plumber' would have found the leak given a free reign and hopefully not taking advantage of the situation , do you really think the 'plumber' wouldn't of found the leak whilst on an hourly


She said he did not find the leak, which bit of did not find the leak are you having a problem with?

Who said he was not given a free reign?

I will ask the question one more time. If a plumber is asked to attend a job due to a leak, he turns up, spends four hours on the job, can't find the leak, should he expect the customer to pay him. Please answer - yes or no. The saying "When in a hole, stop digging" Springs to mind.

You really are starting to sound and make yourself look stupid on this one lad.

Yes the lady should pay him

 

[Jackrae]

Could someone explain to me why push-in plastic fittings which "leak" before a system is up to pressure should be considered in any way acceptable. Surely the o-ring seal should be effective at ANY pressure from zero up to the fitting maximum rating.

 

[CBF]

my 5p worth, charging £80 p/h constantly is wrong, most trades give a discount after the first hr, i know we only have one side of the story (but i have no reason to disbelieve the OP), personally if i couldn't find the leak then i would have charged for the first hr & no more, i would have also moved the pipes to see if i could get a fitting to leak if he had done this then the leak would have shown it's self with no further holes needed & changing the fitting could have been straight forward, but then of course there are good plumbers & cowboys out to rip people off

 

[Agile]

Well I never.

I merely asked if I should pay for a service I clearly did not recieve. And yes, he didn't have a crystal ball and he was a lovely man but the lovely man didn't do what I employed him to do nor did he do what I think is a basic test. And yes, real plumbers - public liability and everything.

Perhaps I live on a different planet from you?

I thought that you had engaged him to provide a service of "leak finding" and thats exactly what he did for three hours.

Three hours was not long enough for him to find the leak and its not clear exactly why he stopped looking for the leak but whats not in dispute is that he took three hours.

During that time he did not find the leak.

It als o seem you had evidence that the leak only occurred during certain conditions but for reasons not disclosed you did not seem to communicate that to him. Had you done so then that would have enabled the leak to be found quicker.

Its an unfortunate fact that there are a very few people to whom we clearly explain the costs in advance and then they still try to wriggle out of paying anything.

 

[Johnmelad]

So only when the 'pipes are filling' does the leak occur , so in other words there is no leak when the water is 'on' , so how did you expect the 'plumber' to find a non-existant leak? , I suggest you leave the water 'ON' in future in order to eliminate any future leaks.

You really are sounding more and more like an idiot. If the pipe is leaking when filling, there is a leak.

I guess she should just repair her ceiling, leave the water on and next time she needs to isolate the supply, just accept that when she turns it back on, she will have to repair the ceiling again.

 

[gaswizzard]

You really are starting to sound and make yourself look stupid on this one lad.

Yes she should pay the plumber for trying to find the leak , and he would of done had the 'pipework not been filled' , considering the 'pipework was full and not leaking' then how would he be expected to find the leak.

 

[Johnmelad]

Well I never.

I merely asked if I should pay for a service I clearly did not recieve. And yes, he didn't have a crystal ball and he was a lovely man but the lovely man didn't do what I employed him to do nor did he do what I think is a basic test. And yes, real plumbers - public liability and everything.

Perhaps I live on a different planet from you?

I thought that you had engaged him to provide a service of "leak finding" and thats exactly what he did for three hours.

Let us all accept that we must pay anyone and everyone for their failures. Does that sit well with you?
But he did not find the leak. If he spent three days looking for it, and still failed, should she have still paid him?

When he turned up why did he not ask the number one question, "Have you turned the water off at the stopcock."

After that, the next steps would have been obvious. Not going to say what they would be, but maybe, just maybe a plumber and a gas fitter would have come to the same conclusion/ done the same thing.

 

[Johnmelad]

You really are starting to sound and make yourself look stupid on this one lad.

Yes she should pay the plumber for trying to find the leak , and he would of done had the 'pipework not been filled' , considering the 'pipework was full and not leaking' then how would he be expected to find the leak.

Even more stupid now. But do keep digging

 

[gaswizzard]

 

[joe-90]

The plumber was clearly incompetent and a rip-off merchant. Take him to the small claims court. For that price I would have replaced all the fittings and repaired the ceiling.

 

[Johnmelad]

Even more stupid now, keep digging lad.

 

[Charnwood]

Does the plumber have a "No find spray, no customer pay" policy?

You can't make an omelettte without breaking eggs, just as you can't find a leak in hidden pipework without breaking plasterboard, tiles etc.

The plumber provided a service so is entitled to get paid. The fact that he did not find the leak is immaterial. He has spent time travelling, time on site, has traveling expenses etc. Get the cheque book out.

 

[Johnmelad]

Does the plumber have a "No find spray, no customer pay" policy?

You can't make an omelettte without breaking eggs, just as you can't find a leak in hidden pipework without breaking plasterboard, tiles etc.

The plumber provided a service so is entitled to get paid. The fact that he did not find the leak is immaterial. He has spent time travelling, time on site, has traveling expenses etc. Get the cheque book out.

Another one who wants to be paid for failure.

 

[mcmoby69]

I did sign a waiver saying that they (the plumbers) were not liable for damages caused

GAME OVER!.

i wouldnt have charged that much, but i would have found the leak. (guaranteed)